In our experience patients undergoing circumcision are mostly concerned about pain and penile appearances. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to assess the benefits of a new disposable circumcision suture dev...In our experience patients undergoing circumcision are mostly concerned about pain and penile appearances. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to assess the benefits of a new disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD）. A total of 942 patients were equally divided into three groups （conventional circumcision, Shang ring and disposable suture device group）. Patients in the DCSD group were anesthetized with compound 5% lidocaine cream, the others with a 2% lidocaine penile block. Operation time, intra-operative blood loss, incision healing time, intra-operative and post-operative pain, the penile appearance and overall satisfaction degree were measured. Operation time and intra-operative blood loss were significantly lower in the Shang ring and suture device groups compared to the conventional group （P 〈 0.001）. Intra-operative pain was less in the suture device group compared With the other two groups （P 〈 0.001）; whereas post-operative pain was higher in the conventional group compared to the other two groups （P 〈 0.001）. Patients in the suture device （80.57%） and Shang ring （73,57%） groups were more satisfied with penile appearances compared with the conventional circumcision group （20.06%, P 〈 0.05）. Patients in suture device group also healed markedly faster than the conventional group （P 〈 0.01）. The overall satisfaction rate was better in the suture device group （78.66%） compared with the conventional （47.13%） and Shang ring （50.00%） groups （P 〈 0.05）. The combination of DCSD and lidocaine cream resulted in shorter operation and incision healing times, reduced intra-operative and post-operative pain and improved patient satisfaction with the cosmetic appearances.展开更多
This systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of the disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD） and conventional circumcision （CC） in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis. Two independent re...This systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of the disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD） and conventional circumcision （CC） in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search for randomized controlled trials （RCTs） using the DCSD and CC for the treatment of redundant prepuce or phimosis in China and abroad. Nine RCTs （1898 cases） were included. Compared with the CC group, the DCSD group had a shorter operative time （standardized mean difference [SMD] = -21.44; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs] [-25.08, -17.79]; P 〈 0.00001）, shorter wound healing time （SMD = -3.66; 95% CI [-5.46, -1.85]; P 〈 0.0001）, less intraoperative blood loss （SMD = -9.64; 95% CI [-11.37, -7.90]; P 〈 0.00001）, better cosmetic penile appearance （odds ratio [OR] =8.77; 95% CI [5.90, 13.02]; P 〈 0.00001）, lower intraoperative pain score, lower 24-h postoperative pain score, lower incidence of infection, less incision edema, and fewer adverse events. There were no differences between the CC and DCSD groups in the incidences of dehiscence, or hematoma. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the DCSD appears to be safer and more effective than CC. However, additional high-quality RCTs with larger study populations are needed.展开更多
目的:探讨一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切术造成系带过短的原因以及手术方法的改进。方法:回顾性分析2020年1~9月320例包茎及包皮过长患者的临床资料,分为儿童组160例和成人组160例,儿童组和成人组各随机分为两组:观察组80例和对照组8...目的:探讨一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切术造成系带过短的原因以及手术方法的改进。方法:回顾性分析2020年1~9月320例包茎及包皮过长患者的临床资料,分为儿童组160例和成人组160例,儿童组和成人组各随机分为两组:观察组80例和对照组80例。观察组采用系带处缝线定位的包皮环切术(一次性包皮环切缝合器),对照组采用常规方法的包皮环切术(一次性包皮环切缝合器)。观察4组的手术时间,系带过短的发生率,术后6 h视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS)。结果:儿童组:观察组与对照组术后6 h VAS评分[3.00(3.00,4.00)分vs 3.00(3.00,3.75)分]比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),手术时间[12.00(11.00,13.00)min vs 8.50(8.50,9.00)min]及系带过短的发生率(0 vs 10%)比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。成人组:观察组与对照组术后6 h VAS评分[2.00(2.00,3.00)分vs 2.00(2.00,3.00)分]比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),手术时间[12.00(11.00,12.00)min vs 6.25(6.00,7.00)min]及系带过短的发生率(0 vs 7.5%)比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切术造成系带过短的主要原因是由于固定带结扎固定包皮引起的。采用系带处缝线定位的包皮环切术(一次性包皮环切缝合器)是一种安全有效的方法,临床上值得推广。展开更多
文摘In our experience patients undergoing circumcision are mostly concerned about pain and penile appearances. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to assess the benefits of a new disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD）. A total of 942 patients were equally divided into three groups （conventional circumcision, Shang ring and disposable suture device group）. Patients in the DCSD group were anesthetized with compound 5% lidocaine cream, the others with a 2% lidocaine penile block. Operation time, intra-operative blood loss, incision healing time, intra-operative and post-operative pain, the penile appearance and overall satisfaction degree were measured. Operation time and intra-operative blood loss were significantly lower in the Shang ring and suture device groups compared to the conventional group （P 〈 0.001）. Intra-operative pain was less in the suture device group compared With the other two groups （P 〈 0.001）; whereas post-operative pain was higher in the conventional group compared to the other two groups （P 〈 0.001）. Patients in the suture device （80.57%） and Shang ring （73,57%） groups were more satisfied with penile appearances compared with the conventional circumcision group （20.06%, P 〈 0.05）. Patients in suture device group also healed markedly faster than the conventional group （P 〈 0.01）. The overall satisfaction rate was better in the suture device group （78.66%） compared with the conventional （47.13%） and Shang ring （50.00%） groups （P 〈 0.05）. The combination of DCSD and lidocaine cream resulted in shorter operation and incision healing times, reduced intra-operative and post-operative pain and improved patient satisfaction with the cosmetic appearances.
文摘This systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of the disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD） and conventional circumcision （CC） in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search for randomized controlled trials （RCTs） using the DCSD and CC for the treatment of redundant prepuce or phimosis in China and abroad. Nine RCTs （1898 cases） were included. Compared with the CC group, the DCSD group had a shorter operative time （standardized mean difference [SMD] = -21.44; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs] [-25.08, -17.79]; P 〈 0.00001）, shorter wound healing time （SMD = -3.66; 95% CI [-5.46, -1.85]; P 〈 0.0001）, less intraoperative blood loss （SMD = -9.64; 95% CI [-11.37, -7.90]; P 〈 0.00001）, better cosmetic penile appearance （odds ratio [OR] =8.77; 95% CI [5.90, 13.02]; P 〈 0.00001）, lower intraoperative pain score, lower 24-h postoperative pain score, lower incidence of infection, less incision edema, and fewer adverse events. There were no differences between the CC and DCSD groups in the incidences of dehiscence, or hematoma. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the DCSD appears to be safer and more effective than CC. However, additional high-quality RCTs with larger study populations are needed.
文摘目的:探讨一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切术造成系带过短的原因以及手术方法的改进。方法:回顾性分析2020年1~9月320例包茎及包皮过长患者的临床资料,分为儿童组160例和成人组160例,儿童组和成人组各随机分为两组:观察组80例和对照组80例。观察组采用系带处缝线定位的包皮环切术(一次性包皮环切缝合器),对照组采用常规方法的包皮环切术(一次性包皮环切缝合器)。观察4组的手术时间,系带过短的发生率,术后6 h视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS)。结果:儿童组:观察组与对照组术后6 h VAS评分[3.00(3.00,4.00)分vs 3.00(3.00,3.75)分]比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),手术时间[12.00(11.00,13.00)min vs 8.50(8.50,9.00)min]及系带过短的发生率(0 vs 10%)比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。成人组:观察组与对照组术后6 h VAS评分[2.00(2.00,3.00)分vs 2.00(2.00,3.00)分]比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),手术时间[12.00(11.00,12.00)min vs 6.25(6.00,7.00)min]及系带过短的发生率(0 vs 7.5%)比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切术造成系带过短的主要原因是由于固定带结扎固定包皮引起的。采用系带处缝线定位的包皮环切术(一次性包皮环切缝合器)是一种安全有效的方法,临床上值得推广。
